Which is the argument for not building neck-througs?

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by maturanesa, Mar 23, 2014.

  1. Just wondering why some high end builders like Sadowsky or Roscoe refuses to build any NT bass...

    I own a NT and the stability and response across the fretboard is superb...
  2. derekcbass

    derekcbass Supporting Member

    May 2, 2011
    Tone. Bolt-on necks tend to produce more punch and a sound that sits better in a mix in the opinions of some players and builders.
  3. I'd imagine neck throughs are most complicated to fix in the event of a break (you can just swap necks), although I can't imagine that happens too often
  4. Baird6869

    Baird6869 LET'S GO BLUE JAYS...(in 2016)...LET'S GO!!

    If the neck goes, you are in serious trouble with a neckthru.

    Also, neckthru costs more to make and is much more labour intensive.

    Lastly, some players prefer bolt on. I personally own neckthru, bolt on AND set neck and don't notice the difference in punch, sustain, etc. I like neck thru for access to the higher register notes but won't pay a large upgrade cost for it.
  5. mmbongo

    mmbongo Chicken Pot Pie. My three favorite things!! Supporting Member

    It also is on a Roscoe or a Sadowsky.
  6. Baird6869

    Baird6869 LET'S GO BLUE JAYS...(in 2016)...LET'S GO!!

    Good point.

    There is no "better".

    More a personal preference thing IMO.

    Better access to higher frets is the only real advantage I can see to getting a NT. Maybe the fact that it looks really cool is also an "advantage". Beyond that, I don't see many real advantages.
  7. zontar


    Feb 19, 2014
    I agree it's a personal preference, and if you have three or more basses there isn't a law saying you can't have a bolt on, a set neck and a neck through.

    Both my basses are bolt ons, but that wasn't intentional--just the way it worked out.

    For guitars I have bolt on and set neck, but no neck throughs--same thing--just the way it worked out.
  8. I dont think the "cost" or "more labour" are issues for a high end builder....
  9. So... you are saying Sadowski or Roscoe dont build neck throughs because they get "the pros of a NT" without building a NT?

    dont think so...
  10. yodedude2

    yodedude2 Supporting Member

    some will scoff, but: when we played a gig outside the u.s., i unbolted the neck and body for my bass and stashed them in my suitcase. much much less hassle with transport, customs, etc. a minor benefit, sure, but a benefit nonetheless. i use neck inserts and actual bolts for this bass so neck detachment and reattachment is a breeze.
  11. Hopkins

    Hopkins Supporting Member Commercial User

    Nov 17, 2010
    Houston Tx
    Owner/Builder @Hopkins Guitars

    They are no more costly or labor intensive than a bolt on.

    Its a simple logistics thing. If a neck through neck twists or fails in some other way, you are pretty much rebuilding the whole bass. Sawing off body wings, and building a new neck. On a bolt on its a simple matter of grabbing a new neck off the shelf and installing it.

    It has nothing to do with all the tone hocus pocus, a neck through doesn't sustain longer and is no more balanced string to string than a bolt on. Upper fret access is their only advantage.
  12. disagree
  13. garp


    Feb 7, 2009
    Connecticut USA
    As others have inferred, the bolt-on design was conceived by Leo Fender as a means of facilitating neck replacements. Because many of today’s high-end builders have admittedly built their designs around the original Fender platform, the bolt-on aspect has been retained.

    I have two NTs and many bolt-ons, none of them particularly high-end. But IMHO, at the end of the day, neck stability and response has more to do with wood quality, truss rod functionality, frets and strings than it does with actual neck design.
  14. Yet another thread where assertions without facts are made.

    Go buy a spectrum analyzer, for starters. Then look at custom manufacturers (like Pedulla) that make both bolt on and neck through basses and do a price comparison.
  15. Hopkins

    Hopkins Supporting Member Commercial User

    Nov 17, 2010
    Houston Tx
    Owner/Builder @Hopkins Guitars
    Disagree all you want to, a bolt on neck will sustain way longer than any bass player will ever need to hold a note.
  16. ArtechnikA

    ArtechnikA I endorsed a check once... Gold Supporting Member

    Feb 24, 2013
    Once upon a time, there were NeckThrough Roscoes.
    They clearly had the craftsmanship, ability, and technology.
    I expect if they had a reason to believe it's better, they still would.
  17. experimental bassist

    experimental bassist

    Mar 15, 2009
    I consider neck throughs a liability and have zero interest in them whatsoever.

    I would simply assume any manufacturer that doesn't make them also feels the same way.

    Thankfully there are many manufacturers that apparently disagree and do produce neck throughs.

    Therefore we all have a choice and everyone can choose to be happy. :)
  18. DiabolusInMusic

    DiabolusInMusic Functionless Art is Merely Tolerated Vandalism Supporting Member

    I thought it had something to do with no dead spots on NT but the cost of replacing a neck vs. a bass at a commercial level makes the most sense.
  19. Joedog


    Jan 28, 2010
    Pensacola FL
    I agree 90%. I also agree with the post about using quality woods and technique is majorly important, and significantly reduces risk in a NT. My home built NT is going on 25 years, and the neck is as good as the day it was finished. I bet I haven't even touched the truss rod (barely any pressure anyway) in 15 years. Still plays like "butta". I also love my store bought bolt on. The sustain argument, to me is an old wives' tale.

    Viva diversity.
  20. Baird6869

    Baird6869 LET'S GO BLUE JAYS...(in 2016)...LET'S GO!!

    When the OP asks "Which is the argument for not building neck-throughs?", I think it is fair to say that cost and the fact they are harder to build can be a fair argument against building NT basses.